Security guards are dmaned if they do, and damned if they don't.

If they chase the subject down, they lose their jobs. If they do nothing, they lose their jobs.

Personally though, if I were a guard in Wal-Mart, my take on it would be this: That $25 hoodie that the idiot is stealing isn't worth my life...and Wal-Mart sucks anyway, so let him steal it.

They certainly won't hesitate to chase you then. "Sir? SIR?!"

I think we're in complete agreement here.

So, following people who skip a receipt check line is okay, but a legitimate shopper lifter is a no-no?

@Paladin_11: As far as everyone being responsible for preventing crime, I think you're right to a point. If someone is harming another person and you are able to do something about it, then common decency dictates you help. In this case, some dude had stolen something from WalMart and was getting away. It was definitely not a situation that would warrant someone innocent getting hurt over. The vast majority of shrinkage for big box retailers comes from employees improperly filling out paperwork. When I worked at Best Buy in college, we were told that theft was only responsible for about 18% of shrink from stores. We were also told over and over that there was nothing in the store worth getting hurt over. I despise theives, but stores understand that theft will happen and aren't worried about it. They are worried about employees or customers getting injured, though...

@TinkishDelight: Absolutely. It's not worth it for a store to be sued because they told their loss prevention team to chase a shoplifter to his car and tackle him. If the shoplifter is a psycho that pulls out a knife or a gun, the store would be exposed to crazy amounts of liability because they told their employee to chase them.

Loss prevention teams are trained to ask shoplifters to stop if they have evidence. If the person bolts to their car, they're supposed to get all the information they can, pull all the security tapes, and give the evidence to the police. It's much safer for everyone involved if real law enforcement officers take care of the problem, and nothing in a WalMart is worth a person dying...

@scouts honor: Off duty police officers generally cost from $50 - $100 per hour (where I live, YMMV, etc). Plus, there wouldn't be enough police officers on any force to man all the retail stores that want security.

Most off duty gigs for cops are things like security at concerts and parties. They're 2 - 3 hour jobs where the cop is basically keeping order by being present with a badge and a gun. None of the cops I've ever met would want to work a full patrol shift and then clock in for 8 hours of watching a security monitor at WalMart. Plus, it's not like any retail store is going to pay $50 - $100 per officer per hour...

@mianne:

Yep. That is why we have insurance.

On one hand, the officer is being paid by Walmart so Walmart could actually liable if anyone is injured in his pursuit or attempt to apprehend the suspect.

On the other hand, even police officers who are off-duty have some legal obligation to continue to inject themselves into situations where the public may be harmed. Many police departments require their officers to carry their weapons off-duty just for this purpose, although that tradition seems to be fading.

you're right...a knife wielding thief should be left to do as he pleases.

remember, getting away with a crime makes the robber more likely to do it again.

@ptkdude: This. I immediately wanted to scream this from the rooftop but I figured someone already had. So I'm joining the chorus line. Walmart shoppers take note, if you just run out of the store with your purchases, they'll leave you alone.

My point was to leave the choice in the hands of the security guard.

i guess i'm in the minority here but i think the insanity has to stop. Stopping criminals gets you fired. it angers me. If this happened in my town then i would boycott that store and start a campaign to get everyone to boycott it. we've become a sue happy society. what next? fire employees who help lost kids find their parents because they were carrying the kid or holding the hand of a kid that isn't theirs? I think some people are just wired to fix an unjustice if they see it. that's why ordinary people run into a burning buildings, or chase after a purse snatcher or break up a fight..all while others just stand around and watch. it's sad and it's despicable that companies do this to people.

Ideally, I would like to see the new policies written in such a way that leaves the discretion up to the security guard as to whether or not they want to chase down a thief. In other words, if the guard feels that the situation puts him/her in too much danger then they should be able to elect to not perform the chase without any fear of getting fired or reprimanded.

In addition, I also believe that the security guard should not be able to chase a thief, get hurt, and then sue the company they work for. They should only get worker's comp. It needs to be a two way street like that.

Interesting

@ageshin: Well here is my opinion. I used to be upset when companies fired their employee's for this but after studying law to some degree, I am in complete agreement with stores that do this for a number of reasons. One issue lies with the perpetrator and when he is the actual plaintiff, but at what point does he becomes the defendant. When he is inside the store and you believe that he has not paid for an item that is on his/her body, he is the defendant. However, once he leaves and YOU begin a chase, now he can claim being a plaintiff and his rights were violated, etc. and then you have to defend your actions if he sues you (I think I'm right on this). THAT is the legal issue that stores are trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with "feeling" who is right or wrong. Forget your morals or the "white knight" attitude. The court will always view human life as being worth more than stolen merchandise. And remember that a security guard's given authority is inside the store, period. It is NOT in the general public because that is the local police jurisdiction. And after thinking of these situations, I wouldn't want some rogue guard starting something outside of his "lane" inside or outside a store. That could be put me in danger. Hell, I don't want to be shot over a stupid CD, etc. I'd just let him go because if someone wants a stupid CD that bad, let him have it. As we say in Iraq, don't be a hero because it may kill you. Just my opinion.

and thats whats wrong with america. INSURANCE if i want to risk my life, for the sake of others, insurance companies should not be able to penalize my employer. there is no honor or integrity anymore. the guy is a hero plain and simple.

@outlulz:

Yes it's true he might get away initially, but between witnesses and store security cameras he/she most likely won't be free very long.

well sometimes being a good person is better than being a security guard for walmart. strike that, being a good person is always better than being a security guard for walmart.

@bigd7387: What is wrong with you? I hate Wal-Mart just as much as the next person, but I don't think the people who work there are stupid or anything. A job is a job - in this economy, I bet there are a ton of people who can't find anything else. When I was in college, the local Wal-Mart was partially staffed by my fellow students. Get off your high horse.

But you know what? That person sure attracted a bunch of attention to themselves pulling that stunt. Think they'they're going to don a ski mask for that "crime of the century"? Odds are pretty good that between witness accounts and reviewing the CCTV that they can get a pretty good description of the individual. What's more, said individual probably isn't all that bright, and will be back tomorrow.

Guess what happens then? Nearly every associate in the store, on the AP team or not is watching them. And just waiting for them to make a run for it again. And this time, as the person tries to run out, they'll probably run smack dab into the 6'4" guy who pulls the pallets full of juice and water across the store all day.

@dragonfire81: I don't know if it works differently in the States (and I'd be scared as hell if it did), but up here, there's no such thing. The moment the guy is off Wal-Mart property, he ceases to be a concern even for a private firm. Also, private firms don't really have much more in the way of capability - slightly better equipment and training is about it. Lesson 1 when I worked private security was "If a Situation seems to be developing, get your boss to call the real cops."

I had company truck, had to park too close to neighbor's driveway one night. 1st thing in morning I'm out there to move truck, big rude note on the truck telling me off. (I wasn't blocking driveway, just too close).

I tore up the note and threw it in his yard.

Monday AM boss call me. I guess neighbor called him because all he asked me was "Did he have it towed?"

"Nope."

"OK, see you later." click.

He was real good that way.

Pro Tip: Just train a pitbull to tear into anyone that enters your premises.

So despise Wally-World, Home Despot, and Worst Buy all you want! But the person shoplifting there isn't hurting them, they're ultimately hurting you!

Further frustrating many a security officer is that they're usually the first person a cashier or stock person will turn to when they suspect a customer is shoplifting. If the officer didn't personally witness the theft, they are not permitted to confront the individual. Best they can do is tail the person through the store, who will (whether thief or not) become agitated by all the attention and a) leave b) tell off the guard and/or c) complain to a manager. but at least nothing more is being stolen at that point.

In fact, if the store's plain clothes detectives have become involved, then the best thing a uniformed officer can do usually is keep far back out of sight of the suspect. That will better enable the AP team to observe an individual concealing merchandise and prepare to detain them at the exit.

That doesn't diminish the role or effectiveness of a uniformed security officer in any way, but the fruits of their labor are usually impossible to recognize directly, so frustration and incidents like the one in the article can happen.

Trying to force your way through them instead and you will probably be pushed to the floor and handcuffed. Sure, you can claim excessive force in court, but it probably won't stand. Remember, the stores have cameras everywhere--especially at the entrance. Once the court hears from all the witnesses (those folks you tried to force your way past) that you were forcibly restrained AFTER you attempted to push the employees out of the way, and you can expect the judge to smirk and instruct the jury to disregard your complaint.

Now, the only times it is appropriate to do so is when you've personally witnessed a suspect commit a misdemeanor (e.g. shoplifting) or if you have reasonable suspicion an individual committed a felony (e.g. someone confesses to you that they just killed someone.)

Also be advised, before you go an arrest the drug dealer on the corner, that as the person making the arrest, it becomes your responsibility to properly and humanely detain the individual until the police take custody. Also you may have to personally prosecute the case in a court of law. Fail to prove the suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you could be subject to civil and possibly even criminal action against you for unlawful detention, kidnapping, etc.

Now most run of the mill security guards have only the most rudimentary training about these issues when they are initially licensed in their jurisdiction. Generally, they will not be given authorization to make an arrest by their employer or the client who contracted their service. Hence and therefore, a private security officer is likely to get themselves into hot water if they try to act like they're a cop.

Meanwhile, other security officers, often having no more officially licensed authority via their state or local jurisdiction are given the authority to arrest. They might be employed as plain clothes detectives in a retail establishment or perhaps as a doorman/bouncer at a nightclub.

The difference (hopefully) with these officers, is that they are given additional training and regular refresher courses on the law, use of force, use of handcuffs, report writing, evidence collection and preservation, etc. So that when they do make an arrest, all necessary steps are taken to gain a conviction against the suspect and have any lawsuits against the officer, employer, and.or client quickly dismissed.

At that point, the procedure is generally to get as good a description of the individual as possible (including a license plate if applicable) and notify the police/record the incident.

The real story here -- Someone's desperate enough to shoplift from WalMart. C'mon gang, there's far better places to steal from. Risk vs. Profit. C'mon shoplifters, don't any of you have economics degrees? Jeesh.

@Stillgot24hours:

And then what would you classify the price of the lawsuit brought forth against you... or even criminal charges if you inadvertently went too far.

The law is only so sympathetic before the words "Two Wrongs don't make a Right." statement comes up in some manner or other.

Let me get this straight... WMT fires their LPAs for chasing down shoplifters, but OTOH lets their greeters/receipt checkers chase down customers who refuse to comply? Sounds bass ackwards to me.

@aguacarbonica:

First of all, he didn't decide if his principle was worth the job. In fact, he's still clueless as to why he was fired and is probably hoping for some public media campaign to restore his 'honor' or something. It's not like in the heat of the moment he had to make a decision to stay put or give chase and possibly be fired.

Second, his reason for chasing down the thief WAS disingenuous. As pointed out below and if you read the full article, one of the things that strikes you is how he made the situation worse from the very beginning due to some incredibly poor decisions. When he noticed the thief walk out of the store with a pack of golf balls in his pocket, what does he do? He calls another person, and together they decide to tackle the guy like in some action movie. That's right, this 'hero' violently tackles a thief involved in a NON VIOLENT crime. He doesn't do what is more logical, to approach the thief and question him. So immediately he ESCALATES the situation and the thief in response pulls out a knife, swings it, and runs away.

So for him to state that the thief was a danger to the public and the city, when in fact this was originally a non violent shoplifting incident, is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not condoning anything the thief did, but for a guy to deliberately create a situation where everything is escalated, puts the thief in a corner, and then tries to make himself out to be a hero for it, is insane. This thief could have seriously wounded both guys, and maybe even others, because the thief's adrenaline was already at a fever pitch and he was antagonized.

Why do you think people advise others to immediately give up their wallets when a criminal asks you for it? It's because you don't want to escalate the situation and force the criminal's hand or otherwise make things worse. Same principle here. So I'm not complaining about him doing the "right" thing. I'm complaining about him doing the WRONG thing. No one's life was in such danger in this situation that it required two people to tackle a non violent shoplifter.

He should have known better. Vigilance is one thing, having guys on your team that go out of their way to be heroes and escalate the situation when it required no such thing is the hallmark of someone that cannot be counted on to make the right decisions in the most critical of times. Wal-Mart was absolutely correct in their decision and I applaud them.

Now, having said that, you're right that the employee was (rightfully) fired for violating the company policy. I have no problem with that. But on a more personal level I do think we're all somewhat responsible for doing our part to prevent crime. This guy put himself in danger more so than anyone else. Not everyone would go that far. But if you (the generic "you", not you specifically) were in that position and decided not to go that far I would hope that you would at least focus on the perpetrator and be a good witness for the police. Too many people simply cower and won't even do that.

@B:
The 80s are back!

Whatever the case, the no pursuit rule was something this guy agreed to when he was hired. And you get fired for breaking rules. It's a common policy, and it is there for a reason beyond a company not having to pay out for a wrongful death suit (which, IIRC, can often end up being CHEAPER than worker's comp).

I would rather a guy not feel the need to play the hero and end up potentially getting people injured or killed, than see my store or any other lose a few bucks. He put people in danger, and that is not cool.

I have no doubt he fell into the first category - I wanted to say that "security guard" can mean a lot.

Approves.

Is the guard willing to relocate to Louisiana?

He can work for me. I will even let him carry a gun. And I pay a hell of a lot more $ than WallyWorld.

Er, did it ever occur to you that this adult has the right to decide if his principle is worth his job?

What makes you think that he was being disingenuous about his reason for chasing down the thief?

I'm tired of people complaining about people doing the right thing. Your reasoning that "no one was being hurt" can be applied here. He's not hurting you, so why the condescension?

If he gets knifed, well, someone got knifed. I'm not a fan of Wal-mart, but I'm pretty sure keeping employees alive is more important to them than worker's comp.

What I don't understand, though, is why they continue to employ security guards who are not allowed to take steps to, you know, keep security.

Lucky him. I will not shop Wal-mart, I could only imagine the poor idgets that have to work there. I would imagine most never graduated High School and that's a shame. I really hope that one day Wal-mart will be taken down but after seeing pictures of the kinds of redneck people who shop there I feel sad knowing it will probably never happen in my life time.

I can understand how having the title of security guard makes you feel obligated to do something in this kind of situation, and I totally understand that if he didn't do anything he would have considered himself that much more useless for the rest of his employment.

However, since it is a company policy he should be aware of, I think it's kind of stupid that he went after the guy. It's not your merchandise, it's Walmarts. Why should you care if they lose an item? they can afford it, and it really isn't your problem. I would be a little happy on the inside that somebody is sticking it to them.

It is specifically against company policy to not chase non-paying customers. Therefore giving them an enjoyable Wal-Mart experience.

@supercereal: I concur, there are certain things worth risking your life for, and walmart just isn't one of them. Even if your principle driven, certain principles need to be let go for the sake of survival.

I worked in a place in high-school, decades ago, that gave cash bonuses if you caught a shoplifter and the shop lifter was convicted.

This guy, if he was actually security as opposed to loss prevention or a greeter, is probably the first.

@nakkypoo: Good for your boss.

I'm tired of these wanna be heroes and Jackie Chan's wanting their 15 minutes of fame and adulation in the media for being a "hero." No one was being hurt in the vicinity, he didn't have to help anyone. His excuse was pretty asinine.

There's nothing "brave" about what he did I don't care what spin people put on it.

This isn't the first time I read of these John Wayne's out there. Enough is enough.

@nakkypoo: I worked at Victoria's Secret in college. We had all these procedures we had to do to confront a suspected shoplifter. We had a crew in one day that was shoplifting perfume and whatnot, and my boss wanted us to get them, so they were calling us over the headsets to watch them steal (several people have to witness a shoplifting before you can confront). When they saw one of the shoplifters produce a knife (they didn't threaten us with it, but they were using it to cut off security tags), they called us all off, and told us to act like we hadn't seen anything. They stole a few thousand dollars worth of stuff from us, but it wasn't worth anyone getting shanked over. I really hated my job by the end of it, but I was glad they had that much common sense.

Steven Seagal is sad :-(

They work for a private security firm - the have full arrest powers for the area(s), they also usually are armed.

Lower prices, every day. WalMart.

In all honesty, major props to the security guard. We all have to take a stand against crime. One reason it's as bad as it is stems from our tolerance of it and or failure to get directly involved. This guy felt capable of doing something and he should be applauded for taking that stand for the rest of us.

Are you sure? Maybe the security guards you're thinking of are actually police officers. But as far as I know, in order to have arrest powers, you have to be a sworn officer through the state (or district, as it were).

Haha, great idea! Someone should go grab a couple Xboxes and then run out the store yelling NYAH NYAH ITS AGAINST COMPANY POLICY TO CHASE ME LOOOOSERS or something.. see what happens.

You know what's kind of funny? My first boss, who was also related to me in some convoluted way (you'd never have known it by the way he treated/treats me), told me "If anyone fucks with you, you take this pepper spray and spray it all over their face. I mean ANYONE. If some guy comes in and tries to steal shit, pepper spray him. If anyone starts shit with you, pepper spray him. After you pepper spray those fuckers, call me and then call the cops. Got it?" Yeah crazy relative, got it...

Let the people who are trained and supposed to handle these situations handle them. That's justice. If something like this happens after your employer makes it very clear that you'd be in hot water for risking you're life to save a $0.99, made-in-China piece of junk, then you're nothing more than a huge liability.

I work at a family run sporting goods store and I think our unofficial policy is to grab a bat and chase the person down and beat the crap out of them. This is definitely due to having to deal with some of the customers we have to deal with. It would be worth the price of the bat tenfold.

Blessing in disguise.

It also depends on a lot of factors on what security guards can and can't do (the policy of their employer). In places in Washington D.C. they have full arrest powers.

The very first things my first boss told me on my first day of work in my life way back when was "Don't try to stop thieves or shoplifters. I won't want any heroes. I will fire you immediately."